High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./3108/2016

Nitin Mahajan & ORS v. State Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR

2018-07-25Hon'Ble Mr. Justice R.K.Gauba2 pages

$~29 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.M.C. 3108/2016 and Crl.M.A.13359/2016, 13875-13876/2016 NITIN MAHAJAN & ORS ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Ashish Dutta, APP for the State with SI Mukesh Yadav, PS Jagatpuri.

Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate with Mr. K.K. Gautam, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA

O R D E R

% 25.07.2018 The petition at hand invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to pray for quashing of the criminal case arising out of FIR No.315/2014 of Police Station Jagatpuri, Delhi involving offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f)/354/354A/354C/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), primarily on the ground that the accusations made against the petitioners in the said case are false, concocted and motivated. The learned counsel for the second respondent, the complainant of the case, points out that pursuant to the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which was filed by the police on conclusion of the investigation, cognizance was taken including against the petitioners by the competent court and that after the presence of the accused persons including the petitioner had been CRL.M.C. 3108/2016

secured, the question of charge has also been addressed and by order dated 15.05.2018 charge has been ordered to be framed against petitioner Shashi Kumar Mahajan for offences punishable under Sections 354A/354/354C/498A IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961. Similarly, charges have been framed against other petitioners Rashmi Mahajan and Nitin Mahajan for offences punishable under Sections 498-A/323/34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The fact that charges have been found to be made out for putting the petitioners on trial itself indicates that that trial court has concluded on the basis of evidence presented before it that the case against the petitioners is not unfounded. The order framing charge has been challenged by another separate petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. subsequently. In this view, the petition at hand does not survive. It is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

R.K.GAUBA, J.

JULY 25, 2018 vk CRL.M.C. 3108/2016